24.07.2025 16:01
F.O., who lives in Karşıyaka, noticed in September 2023 that 100,000 lira had been withdrawn from his bank account without his knowledge. The bank that carried out the transaction rejected the customer's request for a refund. F.O. applied to the Consumer Arbitration Committee, stating that the bank was at fault. The İzmir 3rd Consumer Court concluded that the bank was 70% at fault and the consumer was 30% at fault, and decided that 70,000 lira should be paid to the consumer.
F.O., who lives in Karşıyaka, noticed that his cards were blocked when he went to the ATM to withdraw money in September 2023. After contacting the bank, F.O. learned that 100,000 lira from his time deposit account was transferred first to his demand deposit account and then to a person named I.B. Stating that the transaction was made without his knowledge, F.O. requested the return of the money, but the bank rejected this request.
Following this, F.O. applied to the Karşıyaka Consumer Arbitration Board, seeking redress for his grievance. The board obtained a report from a committee of experts consisting of IT specialists to clarify the matter. The report revealed that an attempt was made to transfer money from F.O.'s account twice, with the first transaction being canceled by the bank as suspicious, but the second transaction allowing the transfer of 100,000 lira was approved.
The report indicated that the internet banking password was reset, some digital channels were restricted, but no block was placed on the accounts. It was also emphasized that the bank did not implement additional security measures such as SMS or phone verification before approving this high-value transaction.
AFTER THE COURT DECISION, THE BANK PAID 70,000 LIRA
The Consumer Arbitration Board found the bank at fault, while the bank appealed the decision and applied to the İzmir 3rd Consumer Court. The court ruled that both parties were at fault. The decision stated, "The bank's failure to activate the suspicious transaction mechanism has caused damage. However, it is also understood that the customer did not adequately protect his personal data." The court concluded that the bank was 70% at fault and the consumer was 30% at fault, ordering the bank to pay 70,000 lira to the consumer.
F.O.'s lawyer, Zümbül Nur Ezikoğlu, stated in a press release, "Banks have an obligation to ensure the security of depositors. We believe that the entire fault lies with the bank. However, the court made a partial fault assessment, considering the public conscience as well," she expressed.